YAY. One for the little guy. Persistence and…. doing it without a lawyer.
NOTE: he was convicted at Provincial Court, appealed and WON at the Supreme Court of B.C.
NOTE: he was convicted of “obstruction” NOT jaywalking (refused to give his “residential” address).
NOTE: he was convicted with a lawyer representing him in Provincial Court and he WON all by himself without a lawyer at the Supreme Court of B.C..
NOTE: convicting him took 2 trial days, not mention numerous pre-trial hears I’m sure.
NOTE: he had previously won a case against the West Vancouver Police and awarded “damages after a provincial court judge ruled he had been illegally arrested as he was walking down the street in January 2006. In her decision, the judge criticized the police, saying Sipes was arrested “without any grounds at all.” “
Read more: Sun News article online SCBC Win News Article July 25, 2012
PDF version- North Vancouver jaywalker wins in B.C. Supreme Court
Interesting case. Read the news articles and glean the basics of his second trial:
- he crosses street not in crosswalk
- police detain him alledgedly for jaywalking
- he gives his name but refuses to give “residential address”
- cops “know him” and threaten him with jail for his “political views”
- tries to walk away because the detention is unlawful
- gets arrested for “obstructing a police officer”
- gets offered “only a warning ” if he would “co-operate and change his attitude”
So the police now actively enforce “approved political views” and invite a change of “attitude” or “you go to jail”. Does this seem like it’s from some documentary about the 1960′s treatment of “hippies” by the police?
Read the above articles for the context of events and the spin by police.
Let’s look at his court decisions, shall we?
Oh wait….these decisions are not listed on the Provincial Court website or the SCBC website. Hmmm.
Just an oversight, I’m sure. They would not only post decisions favourable to the “system winning”… would they?
Stay tuned. We’ll be trying to track down the court decisions and have a look see… and make them available to you.
Here one quote from the newspaper article to start with (assuming the paper correctly quoted):
But the judge disagreed, saying the police had “reasonable grounds” to suspect Sipes had been jaywalking. According to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, a police officer who asks for a name and address can’t be considered to be infringing on anyone’s freedom, wrote the judge.
First is “reasonable grounds” apply to common law harm or threat of harm to people or property not statute offences.
Second, asking. I’d agree here…the act of “asking” does not infringe. You exercising your right to say no and getting arrested for saying no DOES harm you. They CAN ask and you CAN say no BUT they are infringing on your rights (breaking the law) to push you after you exercise your rights or even arrest you.
Yes, you can fight “city hall” and win BUT you must know your rights, claim your rights and defend your rights (which includes COMPLAINING about the infringement of your rights to the courts correctly).
One Response to “SCBC Reversal of Obstruction Charge-Jaywalker”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.